« Ind. Courts - "Courts Use Collaboration Model To Try And Dial Down Emotions In Divorce Cases" | Main | Courts - "Kansas Supreme Court hears arguments about caps on damages awarded to patient" »
Friday, October 30, 2009
Courts - "Judges In Pa. Corruption Case Likely to Evade Civil Charges" Indiana case mentioned
Remember the stories about the two Pennsylvania judges who "sent thousands of juveniles to detention centers in return for kickbacks"? Here are several new stories posted yesterday.
- This long story from Terrie Morgan-Besecker of the Wilkes-Barrie Times Leader begins:
Who should be held responsible for the actions of two former county judges that allegedly led to the wholesale deprivation of constitutional rights of juveniles in Luzerne County Court?
Not the judges, the former jurists argue in court papers. The doctrine of judicial immunity shields them from any liability in the case, no matter how egregious their alleged conduct.
Not the county commissioners, attorneys for the county argue. They were powerless to control the actions of the judges, Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan, and therefore are not responsible for any harm to the juveniles.
And not Dr. Frank Vita, the psychologist who provided evaluations used to determine a child’s placement, his attorney argued. He was merely acting upon a court order, thus he, too, is judicially immune.
That was the crux of legal arguments presented Wednesday during a nearly four-hour hearing before U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo.
- Ashby Jones has this entry in the WSJ Law Blog. Take a look at this quote, which cites an infamous Indiana case:
We checked in with Pitt law professor and expert on the judiciary Arthur Hellman to talk about this strange notion of judicial immunity.
Hellman indeed backed the notion that the plaintiffs might end up high and dry. He said that while the immunity isn’t absolute, it extends to actions taken while judges were engaged in a judicial function.
Hellman explained that the Supreme Court in 1971 upheld the notion of judicial immunity in a case in which an Indiana judge ordered the forced sterilization of a woman, a naked breach of state law. Because the judge was acting under his stautorily granted jurisdiction, he was covered by the immunity. The rule does not, Hellman continued, apply to judges working in official but non-judicial capacities. For example, a judge would not be immune from suit if he or she fired an employee for discriminatory reasons.
“These rogue judges, they were doing things the statute authorized them to do — to sentence juvenile offenders,” says Hellman. “That they did it for terrible reasons, indeed a corrupt motive, I doubt will overcome the presumption of immunity.”
Hellman says that, in occasional instances, the theory causes outcomes that “look terrible.” He says that “it very likely means there will be no recompense.”
- This story by Leo Strupczewski of The Legal Intelligencer is headed "Pa. Justices Expunge 'Tainted' Juvenile Cases: Decision is effectively wholesale adoption of court-appointed special master's recommendation."
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 30, 2009 09:09 AM
Posted to Courts in general